I was introduced to Sir George Martin (Beatles producer) by his wife at a reception a few years ago. He had at about that time announced his retirement from record production and after briefly talking with him my lasting impression was of sadness at the effects of the passing of time on the human body.

In my opinion, new technology has only a small contribution to play in the remastering process which is driven by commercial needs not by audiophile curiosity. It is all too easy to apply a little EQ in this or that frequency band which will result in an audible difference but is it true to the original?

I think the legacy that Sir George gives us is that working within the EMI group - a cutting edge hardware manufacturer at the time and inventors of the colour TV camera and MRI scanner - technical standards were very high to match the artistic standards. Tape recorders were cleaned and adjusted daily or better as there were trained studio technicians who worried about fractions of a dB. In that respect, there is a certain honesty about the originals which demands respect. Note: even on the original 60s recordings, the inevitable tape hiss is not audible. From 1966 onwards, when Dolby A was introduced, did the Beatles use noise reduction or did they minimise tape noise by careful adjustment of equipment and optimising recording levels? I'd like to know the answer to that.

The original early Beatles work were recorded on 2 track mono on 1/4 " tape (EMI BTR machines) which gave very good results due, as you righly state, to the consistant efforts of the maintenace staff at EMI studios. The next stage from 'Revolver' onwards was on 1" 4-track (Studer J37) which in effect doubled the track width and increased the s/n ratio by 6dB (a welcome factor as they now started to do a lot more reductions) I seem to remember that it was only the last album that was on 8-track, again 1" tape (I think they were Studer or Ampex machines). When they went beyond 1" 4-track, I think the quality of the recording did not keep pace with the talent. Dolby came in with the 8 track machines. EMI also used to drive the tape hard with 0VU being 320 nw/m.

With regards to to EQ, Geoff Emerick (and Alan Parsons as well) used to add lots of 10K shelfing on vocals.

Just one recording. As with Mr Shaw, who wrote of a recording which is hugely personal to him I only listen to this record when im completely in the mood and have time an patience.
Unbelievably silent und beautiful. The ONE recording is.

MARK HOLLIS who only made one solo-record.
He formerly was the singer of Talk Talk (Such A Shame), but only if you know their later work (released on Verve) you are prepared for what is recorded here.
Really virtuosic instrumental contributions. I mean VIRTUOSIC in their beauty.
And nearly silent. Seconds of silence between some notes.
Beauty.

not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but listened to Sting's Symphonicities (DG cherrytree 2010) last night and it is refreshingly good, performance and quality. surprised that i had to turn up the volume to get it going. beautiful.

Speaking of The Beatles, I'll admit to being disappointed with the latest CD remasters in many cases. While they lack the harsh digital sound of the original issues, many sounded somewhat rolled off to me, while seemingly offering more detail in the midrange. I had the good fortune to acquire the 24 bit audio files, which I have played back against some of my older CD's, Mirror Spock treated vinyl rips, as well as the 24 bit files burnt to a DVD-A disk. In a volume matched A/B test administered by my lovely wife, we both agreed that the high bit rate files generally exhibit increased midrange detail, cleaner treble and longer reverb trails that seem to honestly match the original CD's.

I'll admit to being a tire kicker in the Harbeth ownership sweepstakes - on the edge of pressing the button on some Super HL5's, but still enjoying my old Royd Doublets (Anyone remember those?) tonight with some thematically linked Rutles.

Speaking of The Beatles, I'll admit to being disappointed with the latest CD remasters in many cases. While they lack the harsh digital sound of the original issues, many sounded somewhat rolled off to me, while seemingly offering more detail in the midrange.

While most audiophiles,when talking about the Beatles' remasters, go on about tonality and detail, hardly anyone mentions the fact that some very dodgy edits on the original issues have been rather effectively improved.

When comparing the original CD issues and the 2010 remasters, it's evident that the former were attempting to match the sonic quality of the vinyl whereas someone said, "we can do much better" when the remastering project was planned. And they did!

BBC equipment time line?

Originally Posted by MikeH

The original early Beatles work were recorded on 2 track mono on 1/4 " tape (EMI BTR machines) which gave very good results due, as you righly state, to the consistant efforts of the maintenace staff at EMI studios. The next stage from 'Revolver' onwards was on 1" 4-track (Studer J37) which in effect doubled the track width and increased the s/n ratio by 6dB (a welcome factor as they now started to do a lot more reductions) I seem to remember that it was only the last album that was on 8-track, again 1" tape (I think they were Studer or Ampex machines). When they went beyond 1" 4-track, I think the quality of the recording did not keep pace with the talent. Dolby came in with the 8 track machines. EMI also used to drive the tape hard with 0VU being 320 nw/m.

With regards to to EQ, Geoff Emerick (and Alan Parsons as well) used to add lots of 10K shelving on vocals.

Kind regards

Mike

Talking of 2 track mono recordings. When did the BBC upgrade the recording equipment at their studios? Details of what they changed from and to would be invaluable too, thanks.

BBC tape recorders in Manchester

Talking of 2 track mono recordings. When did the BBC upgrade the recording equipment at their studios? Details of what they changed from and to would be invaluable too, thanks.

I'm sorry it's taken nearly two years to answer this question:

I joined the BBC in Manchester in 1973 at the time when stereo was just starting to be introduced and can only speak from my memories of Manchester. EMI MTR90s and a Phillips pro recorder both with valve electronics were the first Mono recorders I used, but they were soon replaced when worn out by new transistorised stereo machines.

The first stereo recorders I recall were a pair of Studer C37s (with valve electronics needing warm-up time before alignment could take place) for the Northern symphony Orchestra recordings, based in the Milton Hall in Manchester. There was a single stereo speech studio in BH Piccadilly which had studer A62s and a Neve BCM10 stereo desk. When new Broadcasting House on Oxford Road was built we had an all-stereo capable complement of studios recording onto Studer and Leevers-Rich E200 machines. Studers became firm favourites, A62s then B62s were introduced and later Studer A80s, replacing the earlier models. Outside Broadcasts were catered for with A62 back breakers! We also had some stereo BBC modified EMI BTR2s that we affectionately called BTR2GTs in the Radio Drama recording area.

The Playhouse Theatre was the home of the NDO/ NRO, BBC Theatre Organ and comedy audience shows. I knew it always as a stereo facility and it had a sequence of A62 / B62 and Leevers-Rich recorders through the years, as in Oxford Road, ending up with A80s when it closed.

Gradually as facilities were refurbished A80s became the de facto recorder in Manchester until digital recorders were introduced.
We had Otari MTR90 24track multitrack recorders in the larger mobile OB truck and in Studio3 (radio drama), and as a replacement for the 8-track Studer A80 in the Playhouse Theatre. Pop bands were often broadcast live or recorded in the drama studio. When the Playhouse closed we moved two of the A80s to Strawberry Studios , where we had a short-term hire contract.

The digital era slipped in and DAT became the main format with recorders from Sony and HHB. Direct to CD recording was also incorporated but was very awkward to get right! Direct to hard drive recording was the eventual solution, and Protools, Sadie, Pyramix, and Sonic Solutions systems were all tried out with Protools being the most popular.

I have no idea what is in use now in Media City, as I've never set foot in the place.